You make a fair overall point re Khabib, but I had a couple of thoughts in response to some of the statements in your post so I thought I would address them individually.
QUOTE="YOLOGOGOPLATA, post: 138820289, member: 526791"]Stipe has the most HW title defenses in UFC history, but no one on sherdog cares
It's not exactly like no one cares... of course the majority will give fair due respect to Stipe for his achievements. It's just whether you consider his achievements to be on par with a certain more commonly referenced Russian heavyweight... After all, regardless of your stance on the Fedor debate you have to admit the last emperor still overshadows the division to a certain extent even in this day and age.
If you dig down into the basis of your original question, it's kind of irrelevant whether Bones is able to fight or not. You're asking who is the most dangerous fighter in the world... and I think there's a very strong case that JBJ is the correct answer, regardless of his official eligibility.
Given your valid acknowledgement of Conor's total domination over Alvarez, I struggle to understand why the fact he lost to a larger opponent on 7 days notice a year prior to this fight is relevant at all? Especially given the fact he went on to avenge that loss in dominant fashion within 5 months... In my opinion, the 'lost to a gatekeeper' comment holds no weight. It would've been much more relevant to mention his inactivity.[/QUOTE]
**THIS WAS THE END OF
@LargeMammal QUOTE**
YOLOGOGOPLATA: You make excellent points on all 3 quotes...
I don't disrespect Stipe, it's just the overall impression I've gotten from sherdog when discussing Stipe. Idk why people discredit his accomplishments.
I can't argue with you about Bones, I just thought he wasn't in the conversation because of his suspension - but you're right, with all things equal he's the best fighter in the world... we won't discuss PED's because it's not my place to decide guilt or innocence for a situation I'm not directly involved in.
The only thing I'll argue with you on is McGreogr (and for the record I buy all his fights and love watching him fight)... but I don't think it's fair to discount his loss to Diaz because it was on short notice... I think that's a much greater disadvantage for Diaz (who hadn't been training - the short notice hurt him much more than it did McGregor, who although the opponent changed at least he had been actually training.) I also disagree that McGregor avenged the Diaz loss in "dominant fashion"... I thought he won but I thought it was a 48-47 decision. That being said I was tripping mushrooms at the time (don't judge me) but I rewatched it later while sober and still thought the same lol.
edit: I'm not sure why my "reply" didn't work but your quote ends at "inactivity" and my response starts at "You make excellent points on all 3 quotes" - I added my name to the start of my response; sorry for the confusion
